| Literature DB >> 32498328 |
Chueh-Lung Hwang1, Christine Ranieri1, Mary R Szczurek1, Assem M Ellythy1, Ahmed Elokda2, Abeer M Mahmoud1,3, Shane A Phillips1.
Abstract
Obesity impairs both macro- and microvascular endothelial function due to decreased bioavailability of nitric oxide. Current evidence on the effect of low-carbohydrate (LC) diet on endothelial function is conflicting and confounded by the provision of caloric restriction (CR). We tested the hypothesis that LC without CR diet, but not LC with CR diet, would improve macro- and microvascular endothelial function in women with obesity. Twenty-one healthy women with obesity (age: 33 ± 2 years, body mass index: 33.0 ± 0.6 kg/m2; mean ± SEM) were randomly assigned to receive either a LC diet (~10% carbohydrate calories) with CR (n = 12; 500 calorie/day deficit) or a LC diet without CR (n = 9) and completed the 6-week diet intervention. After the intervention, macrovascular endothelial function, measured as brachial artery flow-mediated dilation did not change (7.3 ± 0.9% to 8.0 ± 1.1%, p = 0.7). On the other hand, following the LC diet intervention, regardless of CR, blocking nitric oxide production decreased microvascular endothelial function, measured by arteriolar flow-induced dilation (p ≤ 0.02 for both diets) and the magnitude was more than baseline (p ≤ 0.04). These data suggest improved NO contributions following the intervention. In conclusion, a 6-week LC diet, regardless of CR, may improve microvascular, but not macrovascular endothelial function, via increasing bioavailability of nitric oxide in women with obesity.Entities:
Keywords: cardiovascular risks; conduit artery; hypocaloric; isocaloric; low-carbohydrate diet; microvasculature; nitric oxide; obesity; primary prevention; women health
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32498328 PMCID: PMC7352173 DOI: 10.3390/nu12061649
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Study flow chart. CR = caloric restriction; LC = low-carbohydrate.
Dietary intake and physical activity at baseline and during the 6-week low carbohydrate diet intervention.
| LC without CR Diet | LC with CR Diet | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Caloric intake, kcal/day | 1993 ± 109 | 2032 ± 161 | 0.9 |
| Carbohydrate, %kcal | 45.8 ± 2.4 | 43.5 ± 1.7 | 0.4 |
| Fat, %kcal | 33.7 ± 3.4 | 36.6 ± 2.9 | 0.5 |
| Protein, %kcal | 18.3 ± 2.5 | 18.5 ± 1.3 | 0.95 |
|
| |||
| Caloric intake (6 weeks), kcal/day | 2328 ± 129 | 1782 ± 42 | <0.0005 |
| Caloric intake (Week 1–4), kcal/day | - | 1616 ± 46 | - |
| Caloric intake (Week 5–6), kcal/day | - | 2163 ± 57 | - |
| Carbohydrate, %kcal | 10 | - | |
| Fat, %kcal | 60–62 | - | |
| Protein, %kcal | 28–30 | - | |
|
| |||
| Caloric intake (6 weeks), kcal/day | 2090 ± 132 | 1724 ± 43 | 0.03 |
| Caloric intake (Week 1–4), kcal/day | - | 1596 ± 59 | - |
| Caloric intake (Week 5–6), kcal/day | - | 2054 ± 55 | - |
| Compliance, % | 89.9 ± 2.9 | 96.8 ± 1.7 * | 0.04 |
| Carbohydrate, %kcal | 10.3 ± 0.3 | 10.9 ± 0.4 | 0.5 |
| Fat, %kcal | 60.4 ± 0.3 | 59.9 ± 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Protein, %kcal | 29.3 ± 2.8 | 28.7 ± 0.3 | 0.1 |
| Dietary fiber, g | 24.0 ± 1.7 | 19.4 ± 1.0 * | 0.03 |
| Folate/Folic acid, mcg | 141.2 ± 10.7 | 122.9 ± 7.0 | 0.2 |
| Vitamin C, mg | 80.2 ± 4.8 | 78.2 ± 3.5 | 0.8 |
| Sodium, mg | 3292 ± 195 | 2924 ± 86 | 0.1 |
| Potassium, mg | 2184 ± 342 | 2101 ± 226 | 0.8 |
|
| 0.3 | ||
| Baseline, steps/day | 5924 ± 813 | 5587 ± 702 | |
| Week 2, steps/day | 8787 ± 1002 | 6552 ± 797 | |
| Week 4, steps/day | 8622 ± 1251 | 6943 ± 855 | |
| Week 6, steps/day | 7887 ± 1342 | 6868 ± 835 | |
Data are mean ± SEM. CR = calories restriction; LC = low carbohydrate. * p < 0.05 vs. LC without CR diet.
Participant characteristics and cardiovascular risks in response to the 6-week low carbohydrate diet intervention.
| LC without CR Diet | LC with CR Diet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Week 4 | Week 6 | Baseline | Week 4 | Week 6 | |
| Age, year | 33 ± 3 | 32 ± 2 | ||||
| Race | ||||||
| Caucasian, | 4 (44) | 5 (42) | ||||
| African American, | 3 (33) | 4 (33) | ||||
| Hispanic, | 1 (11) | 2 (17) | ||||
| Asian, | 1 (11) | 1 (8) | ||||
| Body weight, kg b | 89.1 ± 4.6 | 85.7 ± 5.2 * | 85.6 ± 4.5 | 90.0 ± 3.8 | 86.5 ± 3.9 * | 87.5 ± 4.3 |
| BMI, kg/m2 a,b | 33.5 ± 1.0 | 32.8 ± 1.1 | 32.3 ± 0.9 | 32.6 ± 0.8 | 31.2 ± 0.9 | 31.7 ± 0.9 |
| Waist circumference, cm | 96.1 ± 3.0 | 92.7 ± 3.3 | 92.2 ± 2.9 | 95.5 ± 2.7 | 93.6 ± 3.1 | 93.1 ± 3.2 |
| Waist-to-hip ratio | 0.88 ± 0.07 | 0.84 ± 0.05 | 0.84 ± 0.04 | 0.85 ± 0.02 | 0.81 ± 0.02 | 0.79 ± 0.03 |
| Body fat, % b | 44.5 ± 0.7 | 44.1 ± 1.3 | 43.4 ± 0.9 | 43.7 ± 0.9 | 43.9 ± 1.1 | 42.5 ± 1.0 |
| SBP, mmHg | 115 ± 2 | 113 ± 3 | 115 ± 4 | 118 ± 5 | 112 ± 4 | 112 ± 3 |
| DBP, mmHg b | 70 ± 1 | 68 ± 3 | 68 ± 2 | 72 ± 4 | 70 ± 3 | 67 ± 3 |
| Total cholesterol, mg/dL | 180 ± 14 | 194 ± 15 | 190 ± 14 | 185 ± 7 | 181 ± 8 | 182 ± 7 |
| LDL cholesterol, mg/dL | 106 ± 10 | 121 ± 12 | 117 ± 12 | 104 ± 7 | 110 ± 8 | 110 ± 7 |
| HDL cholesterol, mg/dL | 51 ± 4 | 56 ± 3 | 55 ± 3 | 60 ± 4 | 56 ± 3 | 58 ± 3 |
| Triglycerides, mg/Dl a,b | 116 ± 23 | 92 ± 15 | 85 ± 13 | 104 ± 21 | 72 ± 6 | 71 ± 6 |
| Glucose, mg/dL | 89 ± 3 | 93 ± 3 | 91 ± 4 | 93 ± 4 | 89 ± 4 | 87 ± 3 |
| Insulin, μU/mL | 13.9 ± 2.6 | 12.5 ± 2.4 | 12.3 ± 1.7 | 13.5 ± 2.4 | 10.2 ± 2.2 | 11.8 ± 3 |
| HOMA-IR | 3.0 ± 0.6 | 3.0 ± 0.6 | 2.8 ± 0.4 | 3.2 ± 0.7 | 2.4 ± 0.6 | 2.6 ± 0.7 |
Data are mean ± SEM or n (%). BMI = body mass index; CR = calories restriction; DBP = diastolic blood pressure; HDL = high-density lipoprotein; HOMA-IR = homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance; LC = low-carbohydrate; LDL = low-density lipoprotein; SBP = systolic blood pressure; * p < 0.05 vs. baseline (based on the post-hoc comparison test); a p < 0.05 for time effect (baseline vs. week 4) in all participants; b p < 0.05 for time effect (baseline vs. week 6) in all participants.
Macrovascular endothelial function in response to the 6-week low carbohydrate diet intervention.
| LC without CR Diet | LC with CR Diet | P | P | P | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brachial Artery | Baseline | Week 6 | Baseline | Week 6 | |||
| FMD, % | 6.5 ± 1.1 | 5.9 ± 1.5 | 7.8 ± 1.4 | 9.6 ± 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.7 |
| Baseline diameter, mm | 3.05 ± 0.17 | 3.15 ± 0.25 | 3.28 ± 0.15 | 3.24 ± 0.12 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
| Maximum diameter, mm | 3.26 ± 0.19 | 3.32 ± 0.24 | 3.52 ± 0.14 | 3.56 ± 0.14 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Peak flow, cm/s | 105 ± 12 | 120 ± 12 | 94 ± 10 | 106 ± 10 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.08 |
| Peak shear rate, | 334 ± 42 | 373 ± 40 | 269 ± 27 | 300 ± 29 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| NTG-mediated dilation, % | 25.8 ± 3.8 | 24.7 ± 1.9 | 24.6 ± 2.5 | 28.5 ± 2.3 | 0.9 | 0.99 | 0.4 |
| Baseline diameter, mm | 3.01 ± 0.17 | 3.01 ± 0.20 | 3.34 ± 0.14 | 3.26 ± 0.14 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.6 |
| Maximum diameter, mm | 3.83 ± 0.21 | 3.76 ± 0.21 | 4.11 ± 0.13 | 4.16 ± 0.13 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
Data are mean ± SEM. CR = calories restriction; FMD = flow-mediated dilation; LC = low-carbohydrate; NTG = nitroglycerin.
Figure 2Arteriolar flow-induced dilation at baseline and after the 6-week low-carbohydrate (LC) diet intervention without caloric restriction (CR) diet (n = 5) and with CR diet (n = 8). Endothelial nitric oxide synthase inhibitor (L-NAME) was used to determine the contribution of nitric oxide in vasodilation.